Benefactor (contains spoilers)

I dunno n7's and shepard in general always seemed overrated in the end its the player not the character that is the successful one put shepard in the game as a enemy and s/he would go down like any other opponent probley wouldn't even be much of a fight I mean i get that people are a fan of the character but shepard in the same situation without sam would still face the same posibility of lab experiment or exaltation even as green behind the ears "which sara and scott aren't actually sara being ex alliance same with scott" I still don't know where people get the rapid response thing with scott by his own admission in the game he has no such backstory :D he was simply a babysitting a relay it could be a novel vs game inconsitency i guess i prefer to take the ingame responses as the real canon but thats just a personal choice specially after companies like blizzard likes to contradict or re-write their novel canon :D

a similiar event would be the end of mass effect 3 in all endings you die there no choice no way out even the "invicibile" commander shepard has no way out the end result is the same you died ...

@ViViD_Prime

the rapid response thing is in the lore (aka codex) in the first trilogy.

if alliance forces are stationed at a relay (especially arcturus) they are there to react to any hostile action that is beyond the capabilities of the garrison forces to deal with.

so in the alliance actually watching over a relay, is to be part of a rapid deployment unit.

exept according to scott him self his never been beyond the relay ... which is why it puzzled me it's one of the subjects you can talk about once he wakes up if your playing sara he never mentions any rapid response unit

while scott says he's never been through a relay, it could just mean there was never a reason to deploy him anywhere. however, i don't recall him saying that he'd never been through one (but, i could also be mistaken), just that he always wondered what was beyond it... not really the same thing, though it could allude to the same thing i suppose.

as to him never mentioning it, could just be an oversight by the writers. wouldn't surprise me one bit.

---edit

 and by oversight by writers, i mean that it's possible that... say, the writers either forgot that being stationed at a relay would mean scott was rapid deployment, or just didn't think to mention it.

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

while scott says he's never been through a relay, it could just mean there was never a reason to deploy him anywhere. however, i don't recall him saying that he'd never been through one (but, i could also be mistaken), just that he always wondered what was beyond it... not really the same thing, though it could allude to the same thing i suppose.

as to him never mentioning it, could just be an oversight by the writers. wouldn't surprise me one bit.

---edit

 and by oversight by writers, i mean that it's possible that... say, the writers either forgot that being stationed at a relay would mean scott was rapid deployment, or just didn't think to mention it.

---

Or that literally he never gets deployed through it because nothing ever happened.

---

@ViViD_Prime wrote:

I dunno n7's and shepard in general always seemed overrated in the end its the player not the character that is the successful one put shepard in the game as a enemy and s/he would go down like any other opponent probley wouldn't even be much of a fight I mean i get that people are a fan of the character but shepard in the same situation without sam would still face the same posibility of lab experiment or exaltation even as green behind the ears "which sara and scott aren't actually sara being ex alliance same with scott" I still don't know where people get the rapid response thing with scott by his own admission in the game he has no such backstory :D he was simply a babysitting a relay it could be a novel vs game inconsitency i guess i prefer to take the ingame responses as the real canon but thats just a personal choice specially after companies like blizzard likes to contradict or re-write their novel canon :D

a similiar event would be the end of mass effect 3 in all endings you die there no choice no way out even the "invicibile" commander shepard has no way out the end result is the same you died ...

---

I am wandering from my wandering with some general grousing but, technically, you can survive. The destroy ending can hold the possibility. I'm talking more that Shep would never voluntarily go for an AI getting stuck in his head (and technically neither did I since I never had any possible route other than to read what was written). Sure. If you write the story where there's only one possible solution then there is only one possible solution.

Actually, I think the only "bad ending for all sapients" in ME3 is the do nothing (shoot the Star Child futilely) and the Star Child/Reapers win.

---

@arthurh3535 wrote:

Actually, I think the only "bad ending for all sapients" in ME3 is the do nothing (shoot the Star Child futilely) and the Star Child/Reapers win.

---

well, i know i'd probably be pissed if all of a sudden i wakeup with green glowy junk all over me, and being basically a sort of lame cyborg... if i'm going to be cyberized, a want a bada** cyborg body. not just green circuitry plastered everywhere. 

---edit

so does that still make the green ending "good"?

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

---

@arthurh3535 wrote:

Actually, I think the only "bad ending for all sapients" in ME3 is the do nothing (shoot the Star Child futilely) and the Star Child/Reapers win.

---

well, i know i'd probably be pissed if all of a sudden i wakeup with green glowy junk all over me, and being basically a sort of lame cyborg... if i'm going to be cyberized, a want a bada** cyborg body. not just green circuitry plastered everywhere. 

---

But you are alive to be pissed off about it! :P

---

@arthurh3535 wrote:

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

---

@arthurh3535 wrote:

Actually, I think the only "bad ending for all sapients" in ME3 is the do nothing (shoot the Star Child futilely) and the Star Child/Reapers win.

---

well, i know i'd probably be pissed if all of a sudden i wakeup with green glowy junk all over me, and being basically a sort of lame cyborg... if i'm going to be cyberized, a want a bada** cyborg body. not just green circuitry plastered everywhere. 

---

But you are alive to be pissed off about it! :P

---

....AND we have the plot of ME:A in a couple short posts. 👿

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

---

@arthurh3535 wrote:

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

---

@arthurh3535 wrote:

Actually, I think the only "bad ending for all sapients" in ME3 is the do nothing (shoot the Star Child futilely) and the Star Child/Reapers win.

---

well, i know i'd probably be pissed if all of a sudden i wakeup with green glowy junk all over me, and being basically a sort of lame cyborg... if i'm going to be cyberized, a want a bada** cyborg body. not just green circuitry plastered everywhere. 

---

But you are alive to be pissed off about it! :P

---

....AND we have the plot of ME:A in a couple short posts. 👿

---

priceless. that gave me a good chuckle.

Although I dis not see SAM as a real contender for the Benefactor, because I would find that extremely lame and far fetched considering how SAM has behaved so far, there is something I remember about Alec Ryder.

He reasoned that a symbiotic relationship would stop the threat of AI as the AI is part of a being and therefore not an enemy but part of itself. However, I do find that a bit naive since SAMs can be transferred from one person to another and therefore can sabotage a host and then jump hosts. We can't really assume that an AI with all its intelligence wouldn't be able to figure that out.

I mean, for all we know SAMs ultimate purpose is to join up with Ellen Ryder and the other Ryders are simple vessels to be used until that's possible. It could've been a directive from Alex that got a bit too engrained in SAM.

So yeah, if that were the case I could actually follow what SAMs been doing so far.

---

@CasperTheLich wrote:

while scott says he's never been through a relay, it could just mean there was never a reason to deploy him anywhere. however, i don't recall him saying that he'd never been through one (but, i could also be mistaken), just that he always wondered what was beyond it... not really the same thing, though it could allude to the same thing i suppose.

as to him never mentioning it, could just be an oversight by the writers. wouldn't surprise me one bit.

---edit

 and by oversight by writers, i mean that it's possible that... say, the writers either forgot that being stationed at a relay would mean scott was rapid deployment, or just didn't think to mention it.

---

Actually, he does mention that he was helping arm and train colonies to hold off raids, kind of like Ash/Kaiden and MSV Arrow, and they halted some pirate attacks. Actually, a fun little Easter Egg the writers could add would be having Scott talk about meeting Ash/Kaiden while on this mission

It's possible he mentions it if your playing scott but if your playing sara he makes no such reference as sara he basically only says he was babysitting a relay if you ask him about his military service